Legal Research
Cases
Amagwula v R

Amagwula v R

Case [2019] NSWCCA 156 19 July 2019

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Amagwula v R [2019] NSWCCA 156
Hearing dates: 8 February 2019
Decision date: 19 July 2019
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Button J at [68];
Lonergan at [407]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal to argue ground 2 granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against conviction – supply of prohibited drugs – unrepresented accused at trial – pleas of not guilty not personally entered by accused on arraignment before the jury panel – whether trial a nullity as a result – whether trial so unfair as to constitute a miscarriage of justice – both grounds dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 16, 20, 130, 154, 155, 157
Criminal Procedure Amendment (Pre-Trial Disclosure) Act 2001 (NSW), s 63A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25, 29
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 138
Cases Cited: Caruso v R [2012] VSCA 138
Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237
Fell v Chenhall [2018] NSWSC 1574
Fell v Chenhall [2018] NSWCA 260
Frawley (1993) 69 A Crim R 208
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392; [1986] HCA 26
GG v The Queen (2010) 79 NSWLR 194; [2010] NSWCCA 230
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Gould v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2018] NSWCCA 109
Hughes v R (2015) 93 NSWLR 474; [2015] NSWCCA330
Kamm v R [2007] NSWCCA 201
Libke v R (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
MacPherson v R (1981) 147 CLR 512
Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94; [1989] HCA 28
Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; (2006) 80 ALJR 614
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
Reg v Ellis (1973) 57 Cr App R 571
Reg v Williams [1976] 1 QB 373
R v Apostilides [1984] HCA 38; (1984) 154 CLR 563;
R v Birlut (1995) NSWLR 1
R v Boyle [1954] 2 QB 292
R v Ellis (1973) 57 Cr App Rep 571
R v Halmi (2005) 62 NSWLR 262; [2005] NSWCCA 2
R v Heyes [1950] 2 All ER 587
R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; [2005] NSWCCA 281
R v Kepple [2007] EWCA Crim 1339
R v Nicolaidis (1994) 33 NSWLR 364
R v Talia [1996] 1 VR 462
R v Williams (Roy) (1977) 64 Cr App Rep 106; [1978] QB 373
Van Beelen v The Queen (2017) 91 ALJR 1244; [2017] HCA 48
Texts Cited: Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol 27
LexisNexis Butterworths, Criminal Practice & Procedure NSW
Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England (1883, Macmillan and Co), vol 1
Sir Stephen Mitchell QC, Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice (67th ed, 2019, Thomson Reuters)
Watson, Blackmore and Hosking, Criminal Law New South Wales

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Amagwula v R

Details

AGLC: Amagwula v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 156
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 156
Decision Date: 19 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Amagwula, appealed against his conviction for the supply of prohibited drugs, contending that the trial was a nullity and constituted a miscarriage of justice. The trial judge had ruled that the appellant, who was unrepresented, had not personally entered pleas of not guilty before the jury panel, leading to the pleas being entered on his behalf by a legal aid solicitor. The appellant argued that this procedural irregularity rendered the trial unfair and constituted a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial was a nullity due to the appellant not personally entering his pleas and whether the trial was unfair to the extent that it constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court had to consider whether the procedural irregularity was so significant as to vitiate the entire trial and whether it deprived the appellant of a fair trial. The appellant argued that the failure to personally enter pleas violated his right to a fair trial under the Australian Constitution.

The court held that the trial was not a nullity, as the irregularity did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial. The court noted that the appellant had been present throughout the trial, and the irregularity did not impact the fairness of the proceedings. The court further held that the trial was not unfair to the extent that it constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the appellant had not been prejudiced by the irregularity and had a full opportunity to participate in the trial. The court dismissed both grounds of the appeal, affirming the conviction.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the appellant. The court found that the trial was not a nullity and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's right to a fair trial was not breached by the procedural irregularity. The conviction stands as determined by the trial court.

Orders